CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

gitlab-api

Fetches and analyzes GitLab merge request (MR) comments, metadata, and review feedback using authenticated API calls. Capabilities include fetching comment threads, retrieving reviewer feedback, filtering unresolved discussions, and generating MR activity reports. Use when the user asks about GitLab MR comments, code review discussions, review feedback, approval status, troubleshooting review delays, or needs to fetch merge request metadata via the GitLab API.

Quality

91%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, highly actionable skill body: executable script usage, a real validated workflow reference, and anti-patterns with concrete consequences. The main deductions are modest padding from generic security/rate-limit advice and duplicated points, plus navigation defects — dead evals/ links and an inaccurate script line-count claim.

Suggestions

Fix or remove the Eval Scenarios links: no evals/ directory exists in the bundle, so all five scenario-*/task.md links are dead ends.

Correct the script-size pointer in "When to Examine Script Internals" — it claims ~80 lines but scripts/get_mr_comments.sh is 48 lines.

Tighten the body: fold the generic never-hardcode-tokens and rate-limit/backoff anti-patterns into the Critical Pitfalls list (keeping only their GitLab-specific consequences), and de-duplicate the System/Type and 200-with-error-body points that currently appear in both Mindset and Critical Pitfalls.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Most of the body is genuinely non-obvious, GitLab-specific knowledge (200-with-error-body behavior, System vs Type as independent axes, %2F URL encoding, v3 removal, x-next-page pagination), so tokens largely earn their place. However, two anti-patterns restate concepts Claude already knows (never hardcode tokens; implement backoff for 429s), and the System/Type point and validate-the-response point each appear in both Mindset and Critical Pitfalls, so ~20% of the body could be trimmed — slightly more than "minor instances", but well short of the "some unnecessary explanation" of anchor 3.

4 / 5

Actionability

The core path is fully executable and copy-paste ready: a real script invocation with a concrete example URL, a defined output format, exit codes, prerequisites, and an executable pagination loop that checks x-next-page. The error-diagnosis reference supplies exact commands (grep for "Author:"/"Date:" validation, 401/404 remediation). One small factual slip ("~80 lines" for a 48-line script) doesn't undermine executability of any instruction, so this holds anchor 5 rather than dropping to anchor 4's "minor gaps".

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The reference file's workflows are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ("Fetch and validate comments" as step 1 with grep-based shape checks and exit-on-failure) and the Error Handling section provides the recovery paths (401 → check token/scope, 404 → check URL format, 200-with-error → validate body shape), matching anchor 5's explicit validation, error-recovery feedback loops. Batch operations (pagination, bulk calls) do have validation guidance (429 checks, x-next-page handling), so the batch-operation cap of 3 does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: the SKILL.md is an overview, the workflows/error-diagnosis content is correctly split into a real one-level-deep reference that is well signaled both inline and in a "When to Use" table, and the script is properly externalized with guidance on when to read its internals. It falls short of anchor 5 because navigation has small defects: the Eval Scenarios section links to evals/scenario-1..5/task.md but no evals/ directory exists in the bundle (five dead links), and the script-size pointer is inaccurate ("~80 lines" vs an actual 48), which is anchor 4's "minor organization gaps".

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: third-person, concrete, and comprehensive on both capabilities and explicit trigger conditions. The only weakness is trigger coverage stopping slightly short of full synonym coverage (e.g. summarization phrasings), leaving a couple of natural user phrasings unserved.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "fetching comment threads, retrieving reviewer feedback, filtering unresolved discussions, and generating MR activity reports" — plus the opening "Fetches and analyzes GitLab merge request (MR) comments, metadata, and review feedback using authenticated API calls", giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities in third person. It matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; a 4 would require minor gaps in coverage, but the fetch/filter/analyze/report span covers the full scope of what the skill does.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" via the capability sentence and enumerated actions, and the "when" via a literal "Use when the user asks about..." clause with concrete trigger phrases. This is a direct match for anchor 5 ("clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases"); anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific, which it is not.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use when" clause packs in strong natural phrases: "GitLab MR comments, code review discussions, review feedback, approval status, troubleshooting review delays", and "merge request metadata via the GitLab API". These are phrases a user would naturally say, but a few common variations are missing (e.g. "summarize review comments", "MR activity", "is the MR approved"), which fits anchor 4's "good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing" rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Every trigger is scoped to the clear niche of GitLab merge-request comments/review feedback, and the skill name domain (GitLab MR analysis) is distinct from generic code-review or CI/CD skills. Anchor 5 ("clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk") fits; a 4 would need minor overlap risk with a closely related skill, and the only plausible neighbor (a general GitLab-API skill) is explicitly narrower than these MR-comment triggers.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 5 missing, 5 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

pantheon-org/tekhne

Path

skills/specialized/gitlab-api/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.